After eight innocents were killed and 15 injured in the October 31 NYC vehicular terror attack, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof suggested the death toll would have much higher if the terrorist had an “assault weapon.”

Think about it–a terrorist ran over eight people, killing them, and wounded another 15, yet Kristof’s response is that it could have been worse were it not for gun control.

Kristof tweeted:

The NYC terrorist had a pellet gun and a paintball gun. Good thing that in NYC he couldn't buy assault rifles, or the toll would be higher.

Keep in mind that Kristof works for the same New York Times that responded to the June 14 Alexandria attack by trying to temper Americans’ desire to be armed to stave off mass public attacks. The NYT editorial board admitted that “all people in that situation, unarmed and under fire, would long to be able to protect themselves and their friends.” But after admitting the desire to be armed for self-defense, they criticized the idea of a society where people are actually armed to protect themselves:

Yet consider the society Americans would have to live in–the choices they would have to make–to enable that kind of defense. Every member of Congress, and every other American of whatever age, would have to go to baseball practice, or to school, or to work, or to the post office, or to the health clinic–or to any other place mass shootings now take place–with a gun on their hip.